Re: [PATCHv1 dont apply] RFC: kvm eoi PV using shared memory

Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-04-16T18:35:08Z

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:10:11PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 04:13:29PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 03:30:47PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 03:18:25PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:24:46PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:09:20PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks very much for the review. I'll address the comments.
> > > > > > Some questions on your comments below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:08:07PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > > > > > @@ -37,6 +38,8 @@
> > > > > > > > #define MSR_KVM_SYSTEM_TIME_NEW 0x4b564d01
> > > > > > > > #define MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN 0x4b564d02
> > > > > > > > #define MSR_KVM_STEAL_TIME 0x4b564d03
> > > > > > > > +#define MSR_KVM_EOI_EN 0x4b564d04
> > > > > > > > +#define MSR_KVM_EOI_DISABLED 0x0L
> > > > > > > This is valid gpa. Follow others MSR example i.e align the address to,
> > > > > > > lets say dword, and use lsb as enable bit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We only need a single byte, since this is per-CPU -
> > > > > > it's better to save the memory, so no alignment is required.
> > > > > > An explicit disable msr would also address this, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > We do not have shortage of memory.
> > > > > Better make all MSRs works the same
> > > > > way.
> > > >
> > > > I agree it's nice to have EOI and ASYNC_PF look similar
> > > > but wasting memory is also bad. I'll ponder this some more.
> > > >
> > > Steal time and kvm clock too and may be others (if anything left at
> > > all). I hope you are kidding about wasting of 4 bytes per vcpu.
> >
> > Not vcpu - cpu. It's wasted whenever kernel/kvm.c is built so it has
> > cost on physical machines as well.
> >
> There are less real cpus than vcpus usually :)

I'm adding this percpu always. This makes it cheap to
access but it means it is allocated on physical cpus -
just unused there.

> > > > > BTW have you added new MSR to msrs_to_save array? I forgot to
> > > > > checked.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't yet. Trying to understand how will that affect
> > > > cross-version migration - any input?
> > > >
> > > Not sure. You need to check what userspace does with them.
> > >
> > > > > > > > +static void apic_update_isr(struct kvm_lapic *apic)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + int vector;
> > > > > > > > + if (!eoi_enabled(apic->vcpu) ||
> > > > > > > > + !apic->vcpu->arch.eoi.pending ||
> > > > > > > > + eoi_get_pending(apic->vcpu))
> > > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > > + apic->vcpu->arch.eoi.pending = false;
> > > > > > > > + vector = apic_find_highest_isr(apic);
> > > > > > > > + if (vector == -1)
> > > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > > + apic_clear_vector(vector, apic->regs + APIC_ISR);
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > We should just call apic_set_eoi() on exit if eoi.pending && !eoi_get_pending().
> > > > > > > This removes the need for the function and its calls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a bit of a waste: that one does all kind extra things
> > > > > > which we know we don't need, some of the atomics. And it's datapath
> > > > > > so extra stuff is not free.
> > > > > >
> > > > > How much time those extra things are taking compared to vmexit you
> > > > > already serving? And there is a good chance you will do them during
> > > > > vmentry anyway while trying to inject (or just check for) new interrupt.
> > > >
> > > > No need to do them twice :)
> > > >
> > > > > > Probably a good idea to replace the call on MSR disable - I think
> > > > > > apic_update_ppr is a better thing to call there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there anything else that I missed?
> > > > > I think that simple things are better then complex things if the end result is
> > > > > the same :) Try it and see how much simpler it is.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem to be simpler at all. The common functionality is
> > > > about 4 lines.
> > > Send patch for us to see.
> >
> > That's what you are replying to, no?
> > You can see that it is 4 lines of code.
> No. I mean something like patch below. Applies on top of yours. Did not
> check that it works or even compiles.
>
> >
> > > lapic changes should be minimal.
> >
> > Exactly my motivation.
> >
> My patch removes 13 lines more :)

I'll take a look, thanks.

> > > >
> > > > > Have you measured
> > > > > that what you are trying to optimize actually worth optimizing? That you
> > > > > can measure the optimization at all?
> > > >
> > > > The claim is not that it's measureable. The claim is that
> > > > it does not scale to keep adding things to do on each entry.
> > > >
> > > Only if there is something to do. "Premature optimization is the root of
> > > all evil". The PV eoi is about not exiting on eoi unnecessary. You are
> > > mixing this with trying to avoid calling eoi code for given interrupt at
> > > all.
> >
> > I don't think this is what my patch does. EOI still clears ISR
> > for each interrupt.
> >
> > > Two different optimization, do not try lump them together.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We already have
> > > > > > > call to kvm_lapic_sync_from_vapic() on exit path which should be
> > > > > > > extended to do the above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It already does this. It calls apic_set_tpr
> > > > > > which calls apic_update_ppr which calls
> > > > > > apic_update_isr.
> > > > > >
> > > > > It does it only if vapic is in use (and it is usually not).
> > > >
> > > > When it's not we don't need to update ppr and so
> > > > no need to update isr on this exit.
> > > If there was eoi we need to update both.
> >
> > By same logic we should call update_ppr on each entry.
> > The overhead is unlikely to be measureable either :).
> >
> It is small enough for us to not care about it on RHEL6 where it is
> called on each entry.

Exactly. So why do not we do it?

> > > >
> > > > > But the if()
> > > > > is already there so we do not need to worry that one additional if() on
> > > > > the exit path will slow KVM to the crawl.
> > > >
> > > > The number of things we need to do on each entry keeps going up, if we
> > > > just keep adding stuff it won't end well.
> > > >
> > > You do not add stuff. The if() is already there.
> >
> >
> > Your proposal was to check userspace eoi record
> > each time when eoi is pending, no?
> Yes.
>
> > This would certainly add some overhead.
> >
> Only when eoi is pending. This is rare.

This is exactly while guest handles an interrupt.
It's not all that rare at all: e.g. device
drivers cause an exit from interrupt
handler by doing io.

> > I also find the logic easier to follow as is -
> > it is contained in lapic.c without relying
> > on being called from x86.c as just the right moment.
> >
> See the patch. It change nothing outside of lapic.c.

I'll take a look, thanks.